You are guilty until proven innocent. I thought that only applied in Italy where the courts determine your innocence rather than your guilt. Its a skewed way of doing things and in most cases its harder to prove your innocence than your guilt. So there is a chance even an innocent is sent to jail for their in-ability to prove that they are not-guilty.

So here is the case. Is Najib really innocent? Or are there elements of guilt in his dealings with the Altantuya case? His innocence would have been assured if at the moment his name was mentioned during the early days of the trial, he was investigated. Knowing the way Malaysian courts work (especially towards those who walk the corridor of power) he would have been acquitted and proven innocent. This would have settled it once and for all. But that did not happen. Instead, the judge made a funny statement that only three people were involved in the murder and no-one else. A statement which effectively closed all avenues to investigate possible links to other individuals. Thus, it set the stage for denials upon denials and denials are empty unless supported by proof.

At the moment it is a case of RPK's word against the collective word of Pak Lah, Najib, Rosmah and Khairy.

Malaysiakinireports that Najib denies his wife was ever involved as stated by RPK.

Bercakap kepada pemberita di Parlimen hari ini, Najib berkata akuan Raja Petra itu satu "pembohongan dan sampah" semata-mata.

Najib juga menyifatkannya sebagai satu tindakan terdesak untuk mencemarkan imej politik beliau.

Source: Malaysiakini

Pak Lah has denied receiving any report as stated by RPK and went one up by saying Najib is innocent. Can we really trust Pak Lah on his word when all this while we've been hearing mere rhetoric from him?


Khairy has been brought into the picture and again, I believe he would deny any involvement. So there is a lot of denial going around among this circle of 'friends'. Who then is telling the truth?

Malaysia being Malaysia, we tend to go with the majority. The more people denying would mean it is the truth, even if the truth is a lie. In this case, Najib would be painted as a trust-worthy man who is speaking the truth but he made a blunder.

"Mencemarkan imej politik beliau" that was the statement he made. Does RPK have a political agenda? I don't think so. RPK is bringing back to light (in a genius way) what should have been done in the first place; the day Najib's name was mentioned during the trial - he should have been investigated. This has happened, in a rather round-about way. There is no political agenda here. It's a human agenda, an innocent person was killed and all those involve need to prove their innocence. Why didn't Najib allow himself to be investigated and proven innocent at the onset of the Altantuya trial? Did he have anything to hide?

Najib at this juncture would be stained for life. Even if he is proven innocent, the stigma of being entangled in a murder would stick. Plus, it's not just him - his wife is entangled too. Whether RPK proves himself right or not, the damage would have been done.

Folks, RPK will take the fall - which ever way the courts would decide it. If RPK proves his case, Najib would fall and Pak Lah and gang would be seen as a bunch of liars. If RPK is proven wrong and sent to jail, Najib would be cleared but he would be tainted and can we really trust this man to be the next PM? Politically Najib will survive (politics is weird in Malaysia) but much is desired from him as a person.

If Najib was really innocent, he should have allowed himself to be investigated from the beginning of the Altantuya case. Get my drift? An innocent man would strive to prove his innocence anyway possible because in Malaysia, you're guilty until proven innocent.